A pregnant woman had a terrible encounter at a shop known as Convenieunce plus shop located at Block 260 Bangkit Road. The woman who was injured did not receive any help when it was so obvious its the fault of the shop workers.
Here is the story:
I went to this store convenience plus shop under my void deck Bangkit road and bought 2 litter oil, Nutella, cereal and snacks, they packed everything in 1 plastic bag. As soon as I stepped out of the shop the plastic tore open from the bottom and I can hear the salesperson say ‘ohhh’ but they let me be instead of helping me.
My Nutella was in a glass bottle and I had to carry it myself cause if I don’t someone might get hurt, so walk back to the store and they quickly say ‘it’s not our fault, it’s your fault you cannot refund ‘.
Before I could say anything, 3 salespeople cornered me and raising their voices at me, my finger started bleeding and I said back the plastic was not strong enough and it’s their fault for putting everything into 1 bag
I mean how else do we carry plastic bag? there’s only one way by holding the handle that’s all and the cashier walked away from me and I walked home with a trace of blood on the floor, I’m a pregnant woman and I have a low blood count. I expected some sympathy from the staff they totally disgusting.
The 31-year-old man who set fire in front of a Police station at Boon Keng located at Towner Road Block 105 has been sentenced to 3.5 years jail along with 9 strokes of the rotan.
The incident happened on 13 March 2020, which triggered 56 police reports. The 31-year-old Sivaprakash initially wrote down his plans on a notebook and his family tried to stop him but failed to do so.
At around 11.10 PM he went to the planned destination and set fire to the premise, void deck walls were also painted with the word “ISIS”.
On June 25, 2021, a Singaporean man named Loh Hu Seong, 58, was sentenced to 39 months in prison and a fine of $16,001,500 by the State Courts for dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes under the Customs Act and for being a party to a criminal conspiracy to deal with duty-unpaid cigarettes under the Penal Code.
He will serve an extra 25 months jail for not being able to pay the $16 million fine.
According to investigations, Loh colluded with an unknown guy and a Malaysian man to bring duty-free cigarettes from Malaysia to Singapore sometime in September 2018. For each successful shipment, he was promised between $1,000 and $2,000 in payment. Loh and the Malaysian man entered the country on September 14, 2018.
They came to Singapore to look for excavator components to use as cover loads for duty-free cigarettes. They looked for warehouses at the same time, and Loh ended up renting an industrial unit on Tuas South Street 1 for the deconstruction and retrieval of the cigarettes.
On November 7, 2018, Singapore Customs discovered 5,428 cartons and 25 packs of duty-free cigarettes hidden in recycled excavator arms imported from Malaysia during an operation at an industrial site in Tuas South Street 1.
Following that, five men were apprehended and dealt with separately. The entire amount of duty and GST avoided was almost $514,900 and $37,510, respectively. Loh was found guilty of dealing with uncustomed commodities under the Customs Act for his role in this case.
Loh also engaged in a criminal plot with a Singaporean individual between September and October 2018, according to investigations. He bought excavator arms from a Singaporean man and instructed him that he required holes drilled in the arms to conceal duty-free cigarettes.
After that, the Singaporean hired a craftsman to cut holes in the excavator arms and install brackets with screws in the corners to conceal the hidden areas. Loh was found guilty of engaging in a criminal conspiracy to deal in duty-unpaid cigarettes under the Penal Code for his role in the scam. The Singaporean man’s case is still being heard in court.
After being extradited from Malaysia for these crimes, Loh was hauled into Singapore Customs custody on January 15, 2021. He was previously convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison for dealing with duty-unpaid cigarettes, with a total value of $136,570 and $13,740 in duty and GST, respectively.
SP Group had a media release that stated the amount and reason why there is an increase from 1 July to 30 September 2021.
Electric
For the period from 1 July to 30 September 2021, electricity tariff (before 7% GST) will increase by an average of 3.8% or 0.84 cent per kWh compared with the previous quarter. This is due to higher cost of fuel for producing electricity by the power generation companies.
For households, the electricity tariff (before 7% GST) will increase from 22.55 to 23.38 cents per kWh for 1 July to 30 September 2021.
Image Source: SP Group
Gas
City gas said that the gas tariff for households will increase 0.4 cents to 18.47 cents excluding GST.
A netizen has tried to seek help from MOH and wrote a post regarding his mother and urgently needs the attention of the authorities to help him in his dire situation.
If you have a heart, share this post.
Here is the man’s Facebook post:
“Tried posting this on MOH’s fb page but it doesn’t show up. Thus tagging the team here – Ministry of Health, Singapore
To whom it may concern,I have a legitimate urgent case that I require urgent assistance with.
I’m currently serving my quarantine Order until 05 July. I have a critically ill mom in the hospice whose condition is deteriorating very quickly and is not left with much time.
I am certain that she will not be able to make it through this quarantine order given the updates I received from the hospice. You may check with the hospice on this as they can let you know more about my mother’s condition.I was also told by your team that I will have to borne the cost of any swab tests done that are “ad-hoc”.
To pay a visit on the same day, I will have to first do an ART swab, with the results out in 30 minutes. The cost is $128 per swab each time and the result lasts for 24 hours.If I were to choose to do the PCR swab test it will cost me $299.60, result lasts for 72 hours. But I will only know the result on the next day. The 72 hours includes the time I have to wait for the results to be out.
All these have to be done in order to visit my mom for 2 hours daily including the time the team ferries us from the hotel to the hospice.Honestly, this is not cheap. And this is definitely not the way if we want to visit her daily. It is illogical that I have to pay so much to see my mom who is critically ill and it is definitely not something we wanted.
I called in to your hotline this morning to appeal to waive these costs and also to extend the visiting hours. I called your hotline again this evening as there wasn’t any response from your team as it was something very urgent and I needed an answer quickly.Your customer service team picked up my call and mentioned that there was already a response but “the staff forgot” to give me a call back.
Should I receive a response earlier, I would have requested for a visit today (30 June 2021) making full use of the 24 hours test result for the ART swab test I have done yesterday evening.First of all, this is not something I wish that happened to my mum.Secondly, I don’t come from a well to do family and my dad has passed on last year. I still have a flat that is under loan and other liabilities to pay for. I don’t even earn $5k per month.
I still have to worry about the costs of the hospice bills for my mum’s stay in the hospice.Thirdly, at this point of time, I was hoping that your good team could sympathise with us and our current situation to waive off these “ad-hoc” costs but I was rejected “due to SOP”. Which brings me to my next point – In the event that my mom were to pass on and I do not have money to pay for the swab, is MOH just going to ignore my request to visit her?
Because that seems like the case. I have repeated myself several times through the phone call that my mom’s condition is critical and she may pass on anytime. I only have a mother and I am also only left with her as a parent. Can MOH sympathise with families like us and grant us an exception for such cases to waive off the charges and let us visit her for a longer time? We are all human beings and we have our own family.
Shouldn’t we help each other out on such cases and give exception instead of “going by the book” everytime and rejecting me with “I have checked with my higher management and they have rejected your request” every single time? When I mentioned I would like to speak to the higher management, I was told they DO NOT handle phone calls. In the first place, if they have the authority to make decisions, I would like to feedback that they should also be the ones to handle the phone calls for such cases.
The customer service lady then informed me that they have a supervisor but she has ended her shift. And I have to wait for 3-5 working days later to receive a call back from her. In this situation, I still have to wait. 1. I have been submitting my health declaration through the homer app on time. I am NOT in contact with anyone else and I am feeling fine. I have done my swab tests and my results all showed negative. 2. I am just trying to spend the final moments with my mum, together with my sister.
We are left with our mum, she is also only left with us. Can the team try to understand the situation we are in? We are not coming up with excuses to avoid this quarantine order. 3. For the past few visits, we had to liaise with the Certis integrated quarantine services team and MOH just to visit my mom. On 29 June 2021, we have submitted a request to visit her. In total, it took 9 hours for all the procedures to be done.
We only managed to visit her at 10pm itself. Now, again, if my mom were to pass on suddenly and I have to travel down to the hospice urgently to see her and settle the paperwork etc, do I still have to wait till 9 hours later? It is ridiculous that despite the case was under expedition, we only managed to get everything done and could only visit my mum 9 hours later. So much time was wasted, and it really worries me that if my mom passes away during this time, nobody could help us on this because all the designated visitors from the hospice list including myself are all quarantined.4.
We have been cooperative since the start of this quarantine order. Like I mentioned, my mom do not have much time left and it is very likely that she might not be able to make it through this period while we are under quarantine. I’m sorry I have to resort to posting on this page otherwise my case will be swept under the carpet so that the team can quickly close my case.
Please look into this urgently and not brush me off with a standard reply.5. To add on, your offices have been calling me everyday asking me on my current location. With that tracking device tagged onto us, I’m surprised that I’m still receiving calls daily to check if I am at home or the hotel. May I know then what is the purpose of the tracker? What’s worse is that they even informed us that they will be coming to install a tracker when I mentioned I already have one on. In total the team had visited me thrice to install the tracking device.6.
I have been accommodating and understanding towards the internal miscommunications the team had yet did not complain. I would like to emphasize that I am not escaping from this order. However right now we are at our wit’s end and are seeking the team to look into this ASAP. Please get back to me ASAP as I mentioned my mom is already critically ill and does not have much time left.Thank you.”
A 16-year-old girl and three other younger boys age between 12 and 15 beat up a taxi driver to rob his earnings.
The group took a taxi to Sungei Tengah Road at late night, the 16-year-old came out of the taxi and demanded that the driver steps down. The taxi driver did not comply and was punched in the face twice.
They took $256 from the driver and ran to a nearby farm to split the spoils.
Steal Cigarettes:
On October 12, 2020
The group meet up at a Choa Chu Kang Coffeeshop at around 1.45AM and broke into a coffeeshop to steal cigarettes.
Over 50 packets were taken amounting to over $600.
Rape
She faced 1 charge of robbery with hurt, housbreaking to commit theft.
Another 2 charges of theft and she even reported to the POlice once that she was almost rape.
At least 41 people has been investigated or arrested from both Singapore and Hong Kong, 14 of the main culprits of the syndicate was arrested
Investigations revealed that in a span of 2 days from June 16 to June 18, the Hong Kong scammers scammed over SGD1.56 million.
27 people was arrested in Singapore for the job scam as well.
SPF has released statement on how the scam works
“The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), Police Intelligence Department (PID) and the seven land divisions of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), together with the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau (CSTCB) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), had jointly crippled a transnational job scam syndicate operating from Hong Kong.
In recent months, the Police have seen a rise in the number of job scam cases. In these scams perpetuated by the Hong Kong syndicate, the syndicate would post advertisements for jobs promising quick cash on different social media platforms. The job would require the victims, ie the job seekers, to assist in improving the sales of online platforms, which included Taobao, HKTV Mall, and some malicious mobile apps such as 銘城 and 點點. The victims would subsequently be told to make payments by transferring funds to different bank accounts. In return, the victims would be promised reimbursements of the full sum with 5-12% of commissions.
The scammers would purportedly reimburse the victims and give them commissions in the initial stages in order to convince the victims that it was a legitimate job, and to induce them to deposit increasingly larger sums of money to earn more commissions. At this point, the scammers would promise commissions only after a certain number of tasks had been completed and would delay payments. The victims would only realise they had fallen prey to a scam when they did not receive the subsequent reimbursements and commissions.
Image Source: Singapore Police Force
Following extensive joint investigations between SPF and HKPF, 14 core members of the syndicate comprising 12 men and two women, aged between 22 and 53, were arrested by HKPF between 16 and 18 June 2021 for their suspected involvement in a total of 134 cases of job scams in Hong Kong involving HKD9 million (approx. SGD1.56 million).
Through extensive sense-making and intelligence probe, the SPF managed to detect potential victims who could have received the unsolicited text, WhatsApp and Telegram messages from the scammers. Since 20 May 2021, CAD’s Anti Scam Centre (ASC) has contacted more than 660 potential victims to advise them of this job scam variant. At the same time, the ASC has also terminated more than 270 phone numbers and frozen more than 80 bank accounts, which were suspected to be linked to this scam variant.
Through collective efforts of CAD, PID and seven land divisions, 23 men and four women, aged between 16 and 53, were arrested and/or investigated for their suspected involvement in job scams. Preliminary investigations indicated that they had allegedly facilitated in bank transfers, funds withdrawals, or had relinquished their bank accounts to the scam syndicate.
Director CAD, Mr David Chew said, “The transnational crime syndicate had targeted unsuspecting victims in many jurisdictions, including Singapore. In this instance, they had enticed potential job seekers with promises of highly paid jobs that allowed them to work-from-home. The Singapore Police Force will continue to collaborate closely with our counterparts to prevent, detect and deter these transnational syndicates which exploit the anonymity of the internet to commit crimes. I would like to thank the CSTCB of the HKPF for their strong support and commitment in our joint fight against these scam syndicates.”
Source: The Online Citizen Asia, Singapore Police Force
The Online Citizen Asia Facebook page posted a video online of an interview of a man who committed drunk driving and was later put into a cell at Cantonment police station.
Here is the full Police statement
POLICE STATEMENT ON ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THE POLICE BY A MAN WHO WAS ARRESTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2020
In response to media queries, the Police confirm that we are aware of a video interview posted on The Online Citizen Asia (“TOCA”), alleging Police mistreatment of a man, See Kian Beng (“See”), when he was taken into Police custody on 14 February 2020.
The video interview with See had alleged the following:
a) He was held in the Police lock-up for longer than necessary
b) The Police had assigned him to a padded cell and he was alone inside, even though he had mentioned that he had claustrophobia
c) The Police had pinned him down and used excessive force in moving him into the padded cell, and he had sustained injuries as a result
d) The Police had ignored his request to use the toilet and he ended up urinating inside his cell
e) No food was given to him
f) The Police had refused to let him call his family members
g) The medical personnel at the lock-up had ignored his concerns on his high heart rate; and
h) His car was returned to him only after a long time.
See’s statements give a misleading impression, because he has not set out the full facts. See was arrested for drink-driving after he failed a breath analyser test conducted at a Police roadblock along Boon Keng Road on 14 February 2020 at around 3.40am. He was brought back to the lock-up facility at Police Cantonment Complex at about 4.00am where he was processed for detention while pending the conduct of a further breath analyser test via the Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) machine.
At the lock-up, See was attended to by Nursing Officers on two occasions and he was assessed to be fit for detention. At about 4.40am, after a few attempts to provide a BEA test sample, See passed the BEA test taken in the lock-up with a recorded result of 31 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, which was just below the legal limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath.
As See was legally arrested (having failed his initial breath analyser test), he was processed in accordance with the rules for persons arrested and brought into Police custody. This included conducting a search on him, verification of his identity, a medical examination and assessment of his condition to determine whether he was fit for detention, and registering of his property, among others. The Investigation Officer (“IO”), in charge of See’s case took charge of the processes, before See was released. The processes included checking if See had other pending traffic or police cases, the ownership of the car driven by him, the validity of his driving licence and vehicle insurance.
While in custody, See was brought to wait in a temporary holding area, which is a large room with transparent panels that overlook the common corridor, in between his BEA test attempts and these other required processes. After he had completed his BEA test attempts, he was escorted to another temporary holding area to await the processing of his release, pending confirmation that he was not required for further investigations.
However, See refused to enter the temporary holding area as he told officers to the effect that he was claustrophobic and would harm himself if put into the temporary holding area again. See insisted on waiting along a common corridor, which would affect the movement of persons, including other persons-in-custody, within the facilities. Officers explained that he could not wait there, but he refused to move. See continued to disregard officers’ repeated instructions to move into the temporary holding area and warned officers that he might cause harm to himself.
In view of his threat to harm himself and out of concern for his safety, officers decided to transfer See to a padded cell instead, using a wheelchair. See put up a strong resistance entering into the padded cell and struggled with officers. Despite repeated advice by the officers, See refused to comply with officers’ instruction. Officers therefore had to apply necessary force to physically move him into the padded cell.
At about 6am, See requested to use the toilet. Arrangements were made for more officers to escort See to the toilet due to his prior struggle. When the officers got to the cell, See was observed to be sleeping, hence they did not wake him. Prior to this, See was allowed to use the toilet on two occasions at about 4.30am and 4.55am.
When breakfast was served at around 6.25am, an officer checked on See and found him to still be asleep. As such, breakfast was not served to him.
In our review, we did not find records of See’s request to make any phone calls. While in Police custody, requests for calls to external parties made by persons-in-custody are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
CCTV footage showed that there were no signs of See limping or exhibiting discomfort when he eventually left the padded cell. He was able to walk normally and was escorted by officers.
See was released unconditionally from Police custody at about 7.40am on 14 February 2020, around four hours after his arrest, and he was told to collect his vehicle later in the evening for safety considerations. The Police do not typically release vehicles back to persons arrested for drink driving straight after their release from custody as they may still have alcohol in their body, which could affect their faculties and cause them to pose a risk to themselves and other road users if they are allowed to operate the vehicle too soon. See subsequently collected his vehicle on the night of 14 February 2020.
Shortly after his release, See lodged a complaint and wrote in to provide his feedback on his custodial experience. The Police had asked See to seek medical assessment following his complaint. The medical form provided by See indicated that he had sustained some minor injuries, which included abrasions on his right knee, and a 2cm laceration on his right knee. These injuries appeared to be consistent with the struggles he put up when officers attempted to place him inside the padded cell. The Police also conducted internal investigations including reviewing the CCTV recordings. We did not find any abuse or wrongdoing. The findings were conveyed to See in June 2020. See then wrote in again one year later, on 2 June 2021, to enquire about this case. The Police had tried to contact him on two separate occasions and offered to arrange a further interview with him to hear his concerns. However, he declined to be interviewed.
